get_monitor

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description should disclose behavioral traits. It merely states 'Get the full definition' without mentioning that it is a read-only, non-destructive operation or any auth/rate limit constraints. The description lacks transparency beyond the basic action.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple get tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides enough context: what the tool does, what input it needs, and what it returns (full definition). It is complete for its complexity level.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with a single parameter described. The description mentions 'by its entity ID', which aligns with the schema description but adds no additional meaning beyond confirming the parameter's role. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves the full definition of a single synthetic monitor by entity ID. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_monitors (which lists) and other get_* tools by specifying 'synthetic monitor'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies use when you need the full definition for a specific monitor. It does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives like list_monitors for overviews, but the purpose is clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.